Women's role and intelligence

[Guest guest]

Dear Mahat-Tattva, if you are not willing to give any explanation then don't

write. I am asking simple questions. You say that the text is crystal clear

and I am saying that I don't understand and I am asking you to explain to me

what you understand that I don't understand. Is it so hard? Your guys are

saying that it is crystal clear. In my French language, crystal clear means,

“It jumps to your eyes”. Now, please, can you do that? Give a little

explanation regarding about the "Women's role and intelligence" in this text.

Can you? Ak

 

On 4 Jun 2002, Mahat-tattva das wrote:

 

> > On 1 Jun 2002, Mahat-tattva das wrote:

> >

> > What can I say? I know that. You said that you could explain and here you

> > are simply repeating what you have already wrote.

> > Don't mind. Haribol.

>

> With due respect Prabhu, it seems that you are refusing to understand.

>

>

> >

> > > > Always these vague socio-psychological analysis that a class of

> > > > devotees are so fond of. What is the meaning?

> > >

> > >

> > > > On 31 May 2002, Mahat-tattva das wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Do you want me to answer this? Is this a provocation or a genuine

> > > > > question? Sounds like you already gave a siddhanta.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your servant,

> > > > > Mahat-tattva dasa

> > > >

> > > > Haribol Prabhu. Even if I gave, I maybe wrong. That is why I am

> > > > asking. That passage says nothing. Just like I said it. How do you

> > > > interpret that? A "provocation or a genuine question?" :-) It will be

> > > > a sincere pleasure to hear what you have to say in this. Akhiles

> > >

> > >

> > > The meaning is very clear and needs no comment or explanation. That what

> > > you called "vague socio-psychological analysis" is a quotation from the

> > > "Servant of the Servant" by HH Tamal Krishna Goswami. He found it

> > > important and recorded it in his book as he had heard from his spiritual

> > > master, our founder acarya Srila Prabhupada. Why did I quote it? Because

> > > it was relevant to our discussion on social roles.

> > >

> > > Is that OK?

> > >

> > > Your servant,

> > > Mahat-tattva dasa